3290 syllabus fall 2011 - memorial university · pol 3290 (human security: causes & conduct of...

POL 3290 (Human Security: Causes & Conduct of War) Syllabus, Fall 2011

Sean Clark, Doctoral Fellow, Centre for Foreign Policy Studies - 1 -

Class POL 3290 – Human Security: The Causes and Conduct of War. Term: Fall term; September 7 – December 2, 2011.1 Lectures: MWF, 12:00-12:50hrs. Room SN2098. Total Time: 14 weeks. Format: Seminar. Prerequisite: None (though an introduction to international relations theory is recommended). Office Hours: Wednesday, 15:00-17:00 (or by appointment). Location: SN1034. Contact: Sean Clark Online: D2L (online.mun.ca). http://web.me.com/sean_m_c. “The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is a matter of life and death; a road either to

safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.” Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“For what can be done against force without force?”

Cicero, The Letters to his Friends The purpose of this 3000-level course2 is to examine the causes and applications of organized violence. We undertake this project for good reason. As Hedley Bull observed, war lies at the root of any political order:

“War and the threat of war are not the only determinants of the shape of the international system; but they are so basic that even the terms we use to describe the system—great powers and small powers, alliances and spheres of influence, balances of power and hegemony—are scarcely intelligible except in relation to war and the threat of war.”3

The structure of the international system is therefore predicated on both past conflict and the mere threat of future violence. But it is more than that. War is not simply a matter of politics and power. Indeed, even the tamest of battles instill fear, apply violence, and draw blood. At their most extreme, the costs exacted stagger the imagination. An officer of the 24th Panzer Division, witness to the ferocious fighting around Stalingrad in October 1942, describes just how relentless these struggles can be:

“We have fought for fifteen days for a single house with mortars, grenades, machine-guns and bayonets. Already by the third day fifty-four German corpses are strewn in the cellars, on the landings, and the staircases. The front is a corridor between burnt-out rooms; it is the thin ceiling between two floors. Help comes from neighbouring houses by fire-escapes and chimneys. There is a ceaseless struggle from noon to night. From storey to storey, faces black with sweat, we bombed each other with grenades in the middle of explosions, clouds of dust and smoke…Ask any soldier what hand-to-hand struggle means in such a fight. And imagine Stalingrad; eighty days and eighty nights of hand-to-hand struggle,

1 The University will be closed Monday, October 10, for Thanksgiving, and Friday, November 11, for Remembrance Day. 2 This 3000-level course was designed as an introductory survey of security issues, aiming to ready students for a more in-depth study of strategy (4000-level) and war causation (4000 as well). 3 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society, (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1977), p187.



blinding smoke; it is a vast furnace lit by the reflection of flames. And when night arrives, one of those scorching, howling, bleeding nights, the dogs plunge into the Volga and swim desperate to gain the other bank. The nights of Stalingrad are terror for them. Animals flee this hell; the hardest storms cannot bear it for long; only men can endure.”4

Amidst such carnage, life and death become almost meaningless. In the words of Guy Sajer, another veteran of World War II’s brutal Eastern Front, “I had learned that life and death can be so close that one can pass from one to the other without attracting any attention.”5 In war the living are perpetually surrounded by death. In a January 1917 letter, Wilfred Owen described to his sister how such a situation reigned on the Western Front: “I have not seen any dead. I have done worse. In the dank air I have perceived it, and in the darkness, felt it…No Man’s Land under snow is like the face of the moon: chaotic, crater-ridden, uninhabitable, awful, the abode of madness.”6 To be sure, soldiers have no monopoly on suffering. Wars almost invariably spill beyond the battlefield and taint the surrounding population with its toxic mix of death and destruction. Such actions are often the result of deliberate policy to plunder or terrorize the local population. An eyewitness to a 13thC English pillaging raid in France records such an operation:

“The march begins. Out in front are the scouts and incendiaries. After them come the foragers whose job it is to collect the spoils and carry them in the great baggage train. Soon all is tumult. The peasants, having just come out to the fields, turn back uttering loud cries. The shepherds gather their flocks and drive them toward the neighbouring woods in the hope of saving them. The incendiaries set the villages on fire and the foragers visit and sack them. The terrified inhabitants are either burned or led away with their hands tied to be held for ransom. Everywhere bells ring the alarm; a surge of fear sweeps over the countryside. Wherever you look you can see helmets glinting in the sun, pennons waving in the breeze, the whole plain covered in horsemen. Money, cattle, mules and sheep are all seized. The smoke billows and spreads, flames crackle. Peasants and shepherds scatter in all directions.”7

Many such transgressions against civilians have been the result of a calculated policy of terror. It was, for example, not unusual for the ancient Assyrians to kill every man, woman and child in a captured city, or to carry away entire populations into captivity—all the better to frighten their opponents into submission.8 As Gaul fell to barbarian invaders in the early 5th century AD, merciless ruin was left in their wake. “Throughout settlements and estates, throughout fields and cross-roads and every district, on every road this way and that, there was death, sorrow destruction, burning, lamentation. All Gaul smoked like one great funeral pyre.”9 Such ruthlessness has not been constrained to antiquity. After Tamburlane’s sack of Delhi in 1398, the city was left so ruined that, according to an eyewitness, “for two whole months, not a bird 4 cf John Keegan, Second World War, (London: Hutchinson, 1989), p231. 5 Guy Sajer, cf Stephen G. Fritz, Frontsoldaten: The German Soldier in World War II, (University of Kentucky Press, 1997), p69. 6 Cited in M.J. Cohen and John S. Major, History in Quotations: Reflection 5000 Years of World History, (Orion, 2008). 7 Chansons des Lorrains, 13thC French epic poem. Translation, J. Gillingham. cf Holmes, Atlas, p41. 8 Trevor N. Dupuy, The Evolution of Weapons and War, (Da Capo Press, 1990), p7, 10. 9 Orientius, The Admonition, 2.165-84.



moved a wing in the city.”10 In modern times, too, cries of fear and pain often follow vanquished civilian populations as the victors rape and pillage their way across conquered soil. So how best can we deal with these tragedies? It has been, at least since the interwar period, the position of political science that only by improving our knowledge and understanding can we hope to keep such capricious forces at bay. This class will therefore use the seminar format to critically evaluate the main approaches to the study of violent conflict. The material covered will include not only the various theories that offer explanations for the causes of war and peace, but also the basic strategies that underpin the employment of organized violence. This theoretical backdrop will be followed by a series of 20th and 21st century case studies, which will allow us to compare theory with practice. Finally, the course will end with an evaluation of current security issues, such as NBC weapons proliferation, terrorism, and guerilla insurgencies. Course work for undergraduates includes seminar participation, a paper outline, a 20-page finished product, and two 15-minute readings presentations—each accompanied by brief, 3-page synopses. Graduate students will complete these same basic requirements, with two exceptions. First, the length of their final paper will be extended to 25-pages, with the stipulation that the additional 5 pages of material consists of a much more extensive literature review component. To be clear, graduate students will be required to demonstrate a far more comprehensive grasp of the theories and debates that make up this field. Second, graduate students will face higher expectations in terms of the quality and quantity of their seminar participation. Masters and PhD students need to get comfortable with expressing their ideas in public fora, and then partaking in the debate that almost invariably follows. As this is a seminar course, students will be required to sign up and present two readings per course—though the final number will ultimately depend on student numbers. Readings will be selected by the students’ own choosing. A sign-up sheet will be passed around during the first class, and a copy will be maintained online. Selection of readings will occur on a first-come, first-served basis. Once chosen, students may not change their selection. Keep in mind that seminar obligations are not limited to the presenters alone. All students should arrive at class well prepared to discuss the material to be covered. This includes completing the readings well ahead of time. In particular, all students will be expected to be able to answer, by drawing on the course readings, each of the discussion questions outlined below. In the case of lulls in the conversation, or where certain students are failing to participate in the class discussion, the instructor reserves the right to ask any student any of these questions at any time. This necessitates a consideration of both the reading material and the discussions well prior to the seminar itself. Meanwhile, during class discussions, students should make their points succinctly and clearly, and must not unduly monopolize the time available for discussion. It should go without saying that criticism should be constructive, rather than pejorative, ad hominem, or outside the course material. Lastly, the core learning objectives of this class come in two forms. The first and most obvious is the need to become confidently familiar with the theories and evidence contained within the class readings. These pieces constitute the bedrock of our understanding of the causes and 10 cf Holmes, Atlas, p61.



conduct of war. An appreciation and mastery of this knowledge is therefore imperative before any further research can be completed, including a student’s written assignments. The second set of objectives deal with the mechanics of theory, research, and both verbal and written communication. In this light, a seminar setting aims to not only further the traditional skills of knowledge recitation and paper writing, but also to practice and develop competence in idea presentation and debate. Such abilities are highly useful to topics and contexts far beyond this course. Course Materials Readers:

• Robert J. Art and Kenneth N. Waltz (eds), The Use of Force, 7th ed, (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).

• Richard K. Betts, Conflict After the Cold War, (Longman, 2008). Recommended Reading:

• Michael E. Brown (ed), Theories of War and Peace, (MIT Press, 1998). • John Keegan, A History of Warfare, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993), [Historical

Narrative]. • John Keegan (ed), Collins Atlas of Military History, (London: Collins, 2006), [Atlas]. • Robert O'Connell, Of Men and Arms, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990). • Trevor Dupuy, The Evolution of Weapons and War, (Fairfax: Da Capo, 1990). • Michael Howard, The Invention of Peace: Reflections on War and the International

Order, (Yale, 2001). • Phil Williams, Donald M. Goldstein, and Jay M. Shafritz, Classic Readings and

Contemporary Debates in International Relations, (Belmont Ca: Thomson, 2006). • William H. McNeill, The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force and Society since

A.D. 1000 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982) • David Stevenson, Armaments and the Coming of War, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000). • John U. Nef, War and Human Progress: An Essay on the Rise of Industrial Civilization,

(New York, 1950). • Manus Midlarksy (ed), Handbook of War Studies, (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989). • Greg Cashman, What Causes War? An Introduction to Theories of International Conflict,

(New York: Lexington Books, 1993). Leading Journals:

• Journal of Military History: http://www.smh-hq.org/jmh/index.html. • International Security: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/isec. • Journal of Strategic Studies: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/fjss. • Journal of Military and Strategic Studies: http://www.jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss.

Course Requirements and Evaluation Seminar Attendance & Participation 20% Daily Paper Outline (2 pages) 10% Week 4 (Sept 30)



Article Presentation & Synopsis 15% each11 According to Sign-up Term Paper (20/25 pages) 40% Week 14 (Dec 2) Information on formatting and citations for Political Science term papers is available via Dalhousie’s Killam Library and online at: http://politicalscience.dal.ca/resources/termpapers.htm. Plagiarism (intentionally or unintentionally representing other people’s ideas as your own) is a serious violation of academic ethics, and will be taken extremely seriously. For information on what plagiarism is, how to avoid it, and the penalties for not doing so, please see: http://politicalscience.dal.ca/resources/plagiarism.htm & http://plagiarism.dal.ca/student/index.html The grading thresholds are: 90-100 = A+ 75-79.9 = B+ 63-64.9 = C+ 50-54.9 = D 85-89.9 = A 70-74.9 = B 60-62.9 = C below 50 = F 80-84.9 = A- 65-69.9 = B- 55-59.9 = C- *N.B.: Grades are advanced to the registrar in full-letter form. Course Outline There are two types of readings in this syllabus: reader and supplementary. Students are required to cover only the reader readings for each lecture. This must be done on a weekly basis, concurrent with the classroom seminars. No student can fully participate in the (mandatory) classroom discussion if they are unfamiliar with the works under discussion. As for supplementary readings, there is NO obligation for students to complete them. To repeat, students will not be required to know the supplementary material for the seminar discussions. The purpose of these bibliographic details is simply to provide a starting point for further research, should your term paper project or intellectual curiosity lead you in that direction. Supplementary readings will also be used if needed to provide extra presentation material for unexpectedly large classes. All are available either through the library or Inter-Library Loan request. For further reading suggestions, please see the instructor. Section I: Course Introduction Lecture 1: Three Visions of War and Peace Readings:

• Francis Fukuyama, "The End of History?" (Betts, chpt I, p6-17). • John J. Mearsheimer, "Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War." (Betts, chpt I, p18-33). • Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” (Betts, chpt I, p34-51).

Supplementary Readings: • Stephen Peter Rosen, War and Human Nature, (Princeton: Princeton University Press,

2005). • David Livingston Smith, The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origins of

War, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2007). • Keith F. Otterbein, How War Began, (College Station: Texas A&M University Press,

2004).

11 The verbal and written portions of the assignment will be shared equally.



• Jean Guilaine & Jean Zammit, The Origins of War, Melanie Hersey (trans), (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005).

• Lawrence H. Keeley, War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

• Jack S. Levy, "The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace." Annual Review of Political Science, 1 (1998): 139-66.

Discussion Questions: 1. What, at their core, separates one perspective from another? How do each of the three

different approaches conceive of the world around them? 2. Given the evidence of the last 20 years, which body of theory has proven most effective

at explaining human’s propensity for war? 3. In light of current trends, which perspective is likely to prove most compelling in terms

of its explanatory power? Why is this the case? Section II: Causes of War and Peace Lecture 2: International Realism: Anarchy and Power Readings:

• Thucydides, "The Melian Dialogue." (Betts, chpt II, p56-60). • Niccolo Machiavelli, "Doing Evil in Order to Do Good." (Betts, chpt II, p61-65). • Thomas Hobbes, "The State of Nature." (Betts, chpt II, p66-69). • Edward Hallett Carr, "Realism and Idealism." (Betts, chpt II, p70-86). • Kenneth N. Waltz, "The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory." (Betts, chpt II, p87-93). • Robert Gilpin, "Hegemonic War and International Change." (Betts, chpt II, p94-105). • Geoffrey Blainey, "Power, Culprits, and Arms." (Betts, chpt II, p106-117).

Supplementary Readings: • John J. Mearsheimer, “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War.”

(Brown, part I, p3-54). • Charles L. Glaser, “Realists as Optimists: Cooperation as Self-Help.” (Brown, p94-134). • John Gerard Ruggie, “The False Premise of Realism.” (Brown, part IV, p407-415). • A.F.K. Organski and Jacek Kugler, The War Ledger, (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1980). • Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, “The Power Transition Research Program: Assessing

Theoretical and Empirical Advances,” in Handbook of War Studies II, Manus Midlarsky (ed), (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000), p129-63.

Discussion Questions: 1. Realists have been criticized for excessive pessimism. Is this charge fair? From where

does their obsession with power stem? 2. Thucydides described a cold, harsh political world, where force is a welcomed tool and

the weak are disposable. Are our contemporary surroundings like those of ancient Greece?

3. Some critics suggest realism is no more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. Do we behave as Machiavelli advised because we must, or simply because we know no other way?

Lecture 3: International Liberalism: Institutions and Cooperation Readings:

• Immanuel Kant, "Perpetual Peace." (Betts, chpt III, p122-128).



• Richard Cobden, "Peace Through Arbitration." (Betts, chpt III, p129-131). • Woodrow Wilson, "Community of Power vs. Balance of Power." (Betts, p132-34). • Michael W. Doyle, "Liberalism and World Politics." (Betts, chpt III, p145-49). • Hedley Bull, "Society and Anarchy in International Relations." (Betts, p150-60). • Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, "Power and Interdependence." (Betts, p161-67).

Supplementary Readings: • John M. Owen, “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace.” (Brown, p137-75). • Christopher Layne, “Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace.” (Brown, p176-

220). • John J. Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions.” (Brown, p329-

83). • Robert O. Keohane and Lisa L. Martin, “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory.”

(Brown, part IV, p384-96). • Charles A. Kupchan and Clifford A. Kupchan, “The Promise of Collective Security.”

(Brown, part IV, p397-406). Discussion Questions:

1. Liberals contend that peace can be obtained when it is in our mutual interest to pursue that strategy. Realists suggest that this view is overly-optimistic. Who is correct?

2. Some suggest that the present is more amenable to cooperative bargains than in days gone past. Is this true, and, if so, why would it be the case?

3. Keohane and Nye wrote their treatise on power and interdependence in the 1970s. What would be the result if they wrote their book today? Would they reach they same conclusions?

Lecture 4: Psychology: Unconscious Sources of Conflict Readings:

• Sigmund Freud, "Why War?" (Betts, chpt IV, p171-78). • Franco Fornari, "The Psychoanalysis of War." (Betts, chpt IV, p179-83). • Stanley Milgram, "How Good People Do Bad Things." (Betts, chpt IV, p184-90). • Daniel Kahneman and Jonathan Renshon, "Why Hawks Win." (Betts, chpt IV, p184-90).

Supplementary Readings: • Daniel Byman and Kenneth Pollack, “Let Us Now Praise Great Men,” International

Security, 25 (4) 2001, p107-46. • Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics, (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1976). • Irving L. Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, 2nd

ed (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1982). • Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression, (Methuen & Co., 1966). • Abram Amsel, Frustration Theory, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

Discussion Questions: 1. Psychological theories often ascribe considerable causal weight to traumatic or

‘formative’ events in a person’s life. What types of ordeals would be sufficient to later impact the choice of war or peace?



2. Psychological theories are concerned not only with individual experiences, but also group dynamics. When and where can these forces be seen at work, and what are the common impacts?

3. Psychological theories hold the individual culpable for the decisions of war or peace. However, given the tremendously important structural (i.e. political, economic, and social) circumstances actors invariably face themselves in, is it really fair to apportion to personal choice all this blame?

Lecture 5. Culture: The Sociology of Norms Readings:

• Alexander Wendt, "Anarchy is What States Make of It." (Betts, chpt V, p198-218). • Margaret Mead, "War is Only an Invention, Not a Biological Necessity" (Betts, p219-23). • John Mueller, "The Obsolescence of Major War." (Betts, chpt V, p224-35). • Martha Finnemore, "Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention" (Betts, p236-51). • J. Ann Tickner, "Men, Women, and War." (Betts, chpt V, p252-64).

Supplementary Readings: • John Mueller, Retreat From Doomsday, (New York: 1989). • John J. Mearsheimer, “A Realist Reply.” (Brown, part IV, p427-38). • Bernard Susser, “Psychology and Politics, in Susser (ed), Approaches to the Study of

Politics, (New York: Macmillan, 1992). • Clyde Kluckhohn, Mirror for Man: A Survey of Human Behavior and Social Attitudes,

(Greenwich, CT: Fawcett World Library, 1960). • Marc Howard Ross, “Childrearing and War in Different Cultures,” in Francesca M.

Cancian and James William Gibson (eds), Making War/Making Peace: The Social Foundations of Violent Conflict, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1990), p51-63.

• Ronald Wendt, Alexander Wendt, and Peter Katzenstein, “Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security, in The Culture of National Security, P. Katzenstein (ed), (New York: Columbia University Presse, 1996), p33-75.

• Bruce Russett and Harvey Starr, “From Democratic Peace to Kantian Peace: Democracy and Conflict in the International System,” in Handbook of War Studies II, Manus Midlarksy (ed), (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000), p93-128.

Discussion Questions: 1. Wendt’s “Anarchy” piece is one of the most talked about of the last 20 years. Is it,

however, correct? Is it true that anarchy is merely “what states make of it”? 2. Culture arguments suggest that the proclivity towards war is a reflection of particular

cultural circumstances. What evidence could be offered in support of this contention? What could be suggested in rebuttal?

3. Is war ‘obsolete’? Have our values become so opposed to organized violence that it has become unpalatable amongst both policymakers and the masses?

Lecture 6. Economics: Interests and Interdependence Readings:

• Niccolo Machiavelli, "Money is Not the Sinews of War..." (Betts, chpt VI, p268-70). • Norman Angell, "The Great Illusion." (Betts, chpt VI, p271-72). • Geoffrey Blainey, "Paradise is a Bazaar." (Betts, chpt VI, p273-80).



• V.I. Lenin, "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism." (Betts, chpt VI, p281-87). • Joseph Schumpeter, "Imperialism and Capitalism." (Betts, chpt VI, p288-96). • Alan S. Milward, "War as Policy." (Betts, chpt VI, p297-308). • Kenneth N. Waltz, "Structural Causes and Economic Effects." (Betts, chpt VI, p309-18). • Richard Rosecrance, "Trade and Power." (Betts, chpt VI, p319-32).

Supplementary Readings:

• Dale C. Copeland, “Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations.” (Brown, part V, p464-500).

• Jack Snyder, Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition, (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1991).

• Robert Gilpin, “The Economic Dimension of International Security,” in Henry Bienen (ed), Power, Economics and Security, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992)

• Nazli Choucri and Robert C. North, Nations in Conflict: National Growth and International Violence, (San Fransciso: W.H. Freeman, 1975).

• Olson, Mancur. The Rise and Fall of Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982. Discussion Questions:

1. Economic arguments about war contend that it is simply a reflection of the pursuit of profit. We will choose war whenever it is profitable to do—but no more. Is this a fair characterization?

2. What types of economic interests would be in favour of war? What types would find war detrimental to their long-run interests?

3. Is it possible to structure international politics in a manner such as to increase the costs associated with war and decrease the benefits? If so, what would need to be done?

Lecture 7. Politics: Ideology and Identity Readings:

• Ernest Gellner, "Nations and Nationalism." (Betts, chpt VII, p336-46). • Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder, "Democratization and War." (Betts, chpt VII, p347-

59). • Chaim Kaufmann, "Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars." (Betts, chpt

VII, p360-86). • Radha Kumar, "The Troubled History of Partition." (Betts, chpt VII, p278-86).

Supplementary Readings: • Stephen Van Evera, “Hypotheses on Nationalism and War.” (Brown, part III, p259-91). • David A. Lake and Donald Rothchild, “Containing Fear: The Origins and Management of

Ethnic Conflict.” (Brown, part III). See also David A. Lake and Donald Rothchild, eds., The International Spread of Ethnic Conflict: Fear, Diffusion, and Escalation, (Princeton, 1998).

• Kenneth E. Boulding, “National Images and International Systems,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, III (June 1959).

• Donald Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000).

Discussion Questions:



1. The ‘long 19th century’ is often held as the height of nationalism’s influence on politics. What were the positive and negative implications of this causal force?

2. ‘Cosmopolitans’ suggest that the power of nationalism is fading, and that today we conceive of the world as a common ‘pale blue dot,’ rather than one riven by national identity. How accurate is this assertion?

3. When and where do we see ethnic conflict around us today? What drives these battles, and where lies the potential for resolution?

Section II: Strategies for the Use of Force Lecture 8: How Force is Used Readings:

• Robert J. Art, “The Fungibility of Force.” (Waltz & Art, p3-22). • Barry R. Posen, “The Sources of Military Doctrine,” (Waltz & Art, p23-43). • Robert Jervis, “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma,” (Waltz & Art, p44-71). • Alexander L. George, “Coercive Diplomacy,” (Waltz & Art, p72-78).

Supplementary Readings: • Jack S. Levy, “The Offensive/Defensive Balance of Military Technology,” (Betts, p428-

439). • John Baylis, James J. Wirtz, Eliot A. Cohen, Colin S. Gray, Strategy in the

Contemporary World: an Introduction to Strategic Studies, (Oxford, 2010). • Trevor N. Dupuy, Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and Equipment Losses in

Modern War, (Falls Church: Nova Publications, 1995). • Edward N. Luttwak, Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace, (Cambridge, MA: Belknap

Press, 2001). • Peter Paret (ed), Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age,

(Oxford: Clarendon Pres, 1986). • Azar Gat, A History of Military Thought: From the Enlightenment to the Cold War,

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). • Williamson Murray, Macgregor Knox, and Alvin Bernstein (eds), The Making of

Strategy: Rulers, States, and War, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Discussion Questions:

1. How ‘fungible’ is force? Under what conditions is it a useful lever of politics? Under what conditions does it remain impotent?

2. Offence-defence theory suggests that certain weapons are more offensive in nature than defensive, and vice-versa. Is this popular contention true, or merely the consequence of excessive enthusiasm regarding the putative stability of ‘defensive’ weaponry?

3. Force is often described as that which comes into play after diplomacy fails. Explain why this might be. More importantly, what criteria must a policymaker use to determine whether or not diplomacy has truly ‘failed.’

Lecture 9: The Nuclear Revolution Readings:

• McGeorge Bundy, “The Unimpressive Record of Atomic Diplomacy.” (Waltz & Art, p99-107).

• Robert Jervis, “The Utility of Nuclear Deterrence,” (Waltz & Art, p108-115). • Scott D. Sagan, “Nuclear Instability in South Asia,” (Waltz & Art, p382-393).



• Kenneth N. Waltz, “Nuclear Stability in South Asia,” (Waltz & Art, p394-405). Supplementary Readings:

• Kenneth N. Waltz, “Nuclear Myths and Political Realities,” (Waltz & Art, p94-101). • Kenneth Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May be Better, Adelphi Paper

171, (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies). • Victor A. Utgoff, “Missile Defence and American Ambitions.” (Waltz & Art, p333-346). • Kenneth N. Waltz, “Missile Defenses and the Multiplication of Nuclear Weapons,”

(Waltz & Art, p347-352). • Barry R. Posen, “What If Iraq Had Had Nuclear Weapons?” (Waltz & Art, p353-369). • David Hagertly, The Consequences of Nuclear Proliferation, (Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press, 1998). • Martin van Creveld, Nuclear Proliferation and the Future of Conflict, (New York: Free

Press, 1993). Discussion Questions:

1. Explain the arguments in favour of atomic weaponry as a stability-inducing invention, and those of it as an instability-inducing weapon. What argument is more compelling?

2. How great should our worries be regarding nuclear proliferation? Does it actually matter if a country like Iran gets the bomb or not?

3. The 2003 Iraq invasion was predicated in many ways on American fear that the Iraqi government might consider handing over any prospective nuclear weapon to Al Qaeda and its ilk. Why or why not would Saddam Hussein and his ministers take that step?

Section III: Case Studies in the Use of Force Lecture 10: The Great Power Era Readings:

• Jack Snyder, “The Cult of the Offensive in 1914.” (Waltz & Art, p135-151). • John J. Mearsheimer, “Hitler and the Blitzkrieg,” (Waltz & Art, p152-166). • Sir George Sansom, “Japan’s Fatal Blunder,” (Waltz & Art, p167-178). • Louis Morton, “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” (Waltz & Art, p179-194).

Supplementary Readings: • Hew Strachan, The First World War, (New York: Viking, 2004). • Stephen E. Miller et al, Military Strategy and the Origins of the First World War,

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991). • Hubert C. Johnson, Breakthrough! Tactics, Technology, and the Search for Victory on

the Western Front in World War I, (Novato: Presido Press, 1994). • Bill Rawling, Surviving Trench Warfare: Technology and the Canadian Corps, 1914-

1918, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997). • Martin Gilbert, The Second World War: A Complete History, (New York: Henry Holt,

2004). • Jeremy Black, World War Two: A Military History, (London: Routledge, 2003). • Heinz Guderian, Achtung-Panzer!, (Cassell, 2007). • Erich Ludendorff, Der totaler Krieg. (München, 1934).

Discussion Questions: 1. Explain what the Great War did to the Euro-centric world of 1914. Why would the Great

Powers of Europe choose such a path to suicide?



2. Describe the goals of both Hitler and the Allies. What was each belligerent after—and to what extent were they prepared to get it?

3. The atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagaski had a profound effect not just on the Japanese Emperor and many in his cabinet, but on the world as a whole. What was the chief lesson taken away from the mushroom clouds and their immediate aftermath?

Lecture 11: The Superpower Era Readings:

• Morton H. Halperin, “The Korean War.” (Waltz & Art, p195-210). • David A. Welch, James G. Blight, and Bruce J. Allyn, “The Cuban Missile Crisis,”

(Waltz & Art, p211-234). • John Lewis Gaddis, “Implementing Flexible Response: Vietnam as a Test Case,” (Waltz

& Art, 235-260). Supplementary Readings:

• Bernard Brodie, The Absolute Weapon: Atomic Power and World Order, (New York: 1946).

• Pierre Gallois, The Balance of Terror, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961). • Lawrence Freedman, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, (London: St. Martin’s Press,

1983). • Laurence Martin (ed), Strategic Thought in the Nuclear Age, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press, 1979). • John Baylis, Ken Booth, John Garnett, and Phil Williams, Contemporary Strategy, Vol II:

The Nuclear Powers, (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1987). William Johnston, War of Patrols: Canadian Army Operations in Korea, (University of British Columbia Press, 2003).

• John Lewis Gaddis, The Cold War, (Penguin, 2006). Discussion Questions:

1. The Cold War is well known as a period of remarkable peace between the great powers of the North, and of savage violence amongst those living in the global South. Why the stark dichotomy?

2. Explain why the Cuban Missile crisis was so frightening. How close did we come to stepping over the brink?

3. America’s involvement with Vietnam began with Kennedy’s optimism that a relatively small number of special forces would begin the ‘roll-back’ of communism throughout the Third World. What happened to this ambition and why was this the case? Do we see such optimism today?

Section IV: Current Security Issues Lecture 12: The Contemporary Era Readings:

• Robert J. Art and Patrick M. Cronin, “The U.S. and Coercive Diplomacy.” (Waltz & Art, p272-293).

• Michael E. O’Hanlon, “The Afghani War: A Flawed Masterpiece,” (Waltz & Art, p261-271).

• Benjamin F. Friedman, Harvey M. Sapolsky, and Christopher Preble, “Learning the Right Lessons from Iraq,” (Waltz & Art, p



• “Bush’s War,” PBS Frontline, (March 24, 2008). [Iraq.] {viewed in class.} http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid.

• “Obama’s War,” PBS Frontline, (October 13, 2009). [Afghanistan] {viewed in class.} http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

Supplementary Readings:

• Thomas E. Ricks, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2003 to 2005, (Penguin, 2007).

• Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor, Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, (Pantheon, 2006).

• G. John Ikenberry, “America’s Imperial Ambition,” Foreign Affairs, (Sept/Oct 2002). • Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone,

(Vintage, 2006). • Thomas E. Ricks, The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military

Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008, (Penguin, 2009). • John A. Nagle, Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from

Malaya and Vietnam, (University of Chicago Press, 2005). • Marie Olson Lounsbery, Civil Wars: Internal Struggles, Global Consequences, (Toronto:

University of Toronto Press, 2009). • Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World, (London:

Penguin, 2006). Discussion Questions:

1. Given the number of bombs that fell prior to the 1995 Dayton Accord, the obtainment of peace in the Balkans was inextricably bound with the use of force. The same can be said of Kosovo in 1999. Explain what lessons were taken from these cases.

2. Explain the reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq took place, and why we see the country the shape it is in today.

3. The war in Afghanistan has hit a decade in length. What is your take on the prospects for the future of that conflict?

Lecture 13: Coping with Terrorism Readings:

• Martha Crenshaw, “The Logic of Terrorism.” (Betts, p511-524). • Mark Juergensmeyer, “Religious Radicalism and Political Violence.” (Betts, p525-540). • Osama bin Ladin, "Speech to the American People." (Betts, p541-45). • Mark Sageman, "Jihadi Networks of Terror." (Betts, p546-48). • (Waltz & Art, p463-468). • Gregory Koblentz, “Pathogens as Weapons: The International Security Implications of

Biological Warfare,” (Waltz & Art, p358-370). • Paul R. Pillar, “Dealing with Terrorists,” (Waltz & Art, p469-476).

Supplementary Readings: • Walter Laqueur, “The Changing Face of Terror.” (Waltz & Art, p450-457).



• Brahma Chellaney, “Lessons from Fighting Terrorism in Southern Asia,” (Waltz & Art, p458-462).

• Gus Martin, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues, (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2006).

• Brian M. Jenkins, “International Terrorism,” (Waltz & Art, 77-84). • Karin Von Hippel, "Roots of Terrorism: Probing the Myths," The Political Quarterly.

Volume 73 Issue 1 Page 25 - August 2002. • Richard A. Falkenrath, Robert D. Newman, and Bradley A. Thayer, “America’s Achilles

Heel: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Terrorism and Covert Attack,” (BCSIA Studies in International Security, 1998).

• Richard K. Betts, "The Soft Underbelly of American Primacy: Tactical Advantages of Terror." Political Science Quarterly, 117, 1 (Spring 2002), 19-36.

• A. Clauset, M. Young and K. S. Gledistch, "On the Frequency of Severe Terrorist Attacks," Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(1): 58 - 88 (2007).

Discussion Questions: 1. Explain the logic of a suicide bomber in a crowded market. What is the political

ambition that lies behind such a bloody act? 2. How successful is the tactic of terrorism? Even more, what are the chief methods of

countering it? 3. What is the potential of terrorists adopting nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in

the future? What is there to consider regarding the battle between advancing technology and political acceptability?

Section V: Wrap Up Lecture 14: Conclusion: The World Ahead Readings:

• Samuel P. Huntington, “Patterns of Violence in World Politics.” (Betts, p486-510). • G. John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter, "A World of Liberty Under Law." (Betts,

chpt XI, p625-30). • Myron Weiner, "Security, Stability, and Migration." (Betts, chpt X, p580-95). • Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, "Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict." (Betts,

chpt X, p607-22). • Richard K. Betts and Thomas J. Christensen, "China: Can the Next Superpower Rise

Without War?" (Betts, chpt XI, p631-42). • Samuel P. Huntington, "Peace Among Civilizations?" (Betts, chpt XI, p643-54).

Supplementary Readings: • Carl Kaysen. "Is War Obsolete? A Review Essay." International Security, 14 (Spring 1990):

42-64. • Richard Rosecrance, Rise of the Trading State, (New York: Basic Books, 1987). • Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The

Responsibility to Protect, (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2001). • Colin S. Gray, Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare, (London: Weidenfeld &

Nicolson, 2005). Discussion Questions:



1. Liberals hope that a series of international institutions, such as the United Nations and International Court of Justice can facilitate cooperation and prevent a descent to violence. Is this an overly optimistic goal? If so, what would make it more achievable?

2. Some suggest environmental worries will far outstrip political ones in the 21st century. Why or why not might this be the case?

3. How likely is it that violence will define the foreseeable future? Where is violence likely to appear—if at all—and what will its effects be?

4. To what extent can this field claim the ability to accumulate knowledge? With the ‘long, bloody 20th century’ now past, is there reason to suggest we know more than before about what causes wars and how best to stop them from happening in the first place?

Supplementary Topics and Readings Transnational Tensions: Migration, Resources, and the Environment Readings:

• John K. Cooley, "The War Over Water." (Betts, chpt X, p596-606). • John Omre, “The Utility of Force in a World of Scarcity.” (Brown, part V, p537-66). • Thomas F Homer-Dixon (1991) "On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of

Acute Conflict." International Security, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Fall 1991), pp. 76-116. • Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, “Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence

from Cases.” (Brown, part V, p501-36). • Nils Petter Gleditsch (1998) "Armed Conflict and the Environment: A Critique of the

Literature. Journal of Peace Research, Volume 35, 3 pp. 381-400. • Daniel Deudney, "The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National

Security," in Millennium 19, No. 3 (1990), 461-476. • Colin Kahl, "Population Growth, Environmental Degradation, and State Sponsored

Violence: The Case of Kenya, 1991-1993," International Security 23, No. 2 (Fall 1998): 80-119.

Arms Racing and Arms Control Readings:

• Samuel P. Huntington, "Arms Races: Prerequisites and Results." (Betts, p391-411). • Robert Jervis, "Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma." (Betts, chpt VIII, p412-427). • Charles Fairbanks and Abram Shulsky, "Arms Control: Historical Experience." (Betts,

p440-50). • Michael D. Wallace, “Armaments and Escalation: Two Competing Hypotheses,”

International Studies Quarterly, 26 (1982), p37-56. • Susan Sample, “Military Buildups: Arming and War,” in What Do We Know About War?,

John A. Vasquez (ed), (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000). • Randolph M. Siverson and Paul F. Diehl, “Arms Races, the Conflict Spiral, and the Onset

of War,” in Midlarksy (ed), Handbook of War Studies, (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989) The Projection of U.S. Military Power Readings:

• Christopher Layne, “From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing.” (Waltz & Art, p283-298).

• Robert J. Art, “The Strategy of Selective Engagement,” (Waltz & Art, p299-320).



• Stephen M. Walt, “Taming Amerian Power,” (Waltz & Art p349-357). • Colin Dueck, Reluctant Crusaders: Power, Culture, and Change in American Grand

Strategy, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006). Intervention in Internal Conflicts Readings:

• Chaim Kaufmann, “Intervention in Ethnic and Ideological Civil Wars.” (Waltz & Art, p394-414).

• Barry R. Posen, “Military Responses to Refugee Disasters,” (Waltz & Art, p415-435). • Barbara F. Walter, “The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement” (Waltz & Art, p436-

449). Unconventional Warfare Readings:

• T. E. Lawrence, “Science of Guerrilla Warfare.” (Betts, chpt IX, p466-74). • Mao Tse-tung, “On Guerrilla Warfare.” (Betts, chpt IX, p475-85).



Assignments The course’s two main assignments are the readings presentations and a research paper project. The former consists of two classroom presentations and a brief 3-page synopsis to go along with each. As for the research project, it is broken into two distinct components: a paper outline and a final term paper. This framework has been adopted so that the work of one assignment feeds that of another. This way, students begin thinking about the shape of their argument, along with the evidence necessary to support it, long before the term paper is actually written. Doing so dramatically improves both the quality of the argument as well as its delivery, and fosters the acquisition of key skills deemed vital for further research in the field. That being said, each assignment is viewed as discrete. There is no comparison of one assignment to the next, no attempt to ensure that the topic chosen for the paper outline is the same in the final product. Students are thus free to change their subjects at will. Always use as many citations as possible. Every idea, every piece of evidence should be sourced to a particular author and publication. A good rule of thumb is ‘when in doubt, cite it out.’ I. Readings Presentations and Synopses (15% each) Theories are elaborate constructions, built upon the insights of past scholarship. New research always depends on the contributions of old. The readings presentation assignment therefore intends to develop the student’s ability to first critically examine a published article, then locate it within the context of the rest of the literature as a whole. Successful scholars do not simply read an article, but rather subject it to a methodical analysis and locate it within a broader theoretical framework or tradition. Ultimately, the hope is that this assignment will:

“help students become more confident in identifying key issues; determining what factors influence outcomes in global interactions; considering how best to approach a world politics question historically, theoretically, and practically; and recognizing authors’ biases, approaches, and assumptions so that every article can be understood as part of a story, rather than the story itself.”12

For this assignment, the student will sign up to give two readings presentations13 at the outset of class. The job will then be to draw out the key points of the authors’ arguments, evaluate how well the author defends his or her argument, and then communicate these findings to the class in a presentation that will run roughly 10-15 minutes. To facilitate this process, students will submit to their colleagues and instructor, via email listserv, a two-page synopsis, and do so no less than 24-hours prior to their presentation. Presentation Questions The central task of the presenter will be to take apart the article to its most basic components, and then evaluate how well these have been brought together. Specifically, the student will answer the following questions for each of the articles:

1. What debate is each author addressing? What question is he or she trying to answer? 2. What is the central argument the author is putting forward? What is his or her thesis?

12 Steven L. Spiegel, Jennifer Morrison Taw, Fred L. Wehling, and Kristen P. Williams, Readings in World Politics: A New Era, “Introduction,” (Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005), p5. 13 Final numbers will, however, be ultimately based on class size.



3. What factors/processes/variables does the author feel to be the most important when explaining the core question? In other words, what are the crucial elements, the causes and effects, of the phenomenon under study?

4. What evidence does the author cite to defend his position? What resources are they employing in the service of their argument? In other words, what elements do they feel is important to making a convincing case? How reliable (accurate and precise) and valid (that you are certain that the measures chosen actually reflect the underlying phenomenon that the author was attempting to test for) are these measures?

5. Overall, how compelling is the author’s main contention? Is it likely to gain wide acceptance and revolutionize the field, or will the piece be forgotten 5 years hence?

In addition, the presenter must also convey some sense of where the article’s argument fits in relation to the rest of the field as a whole. Conclude your presentation with a sense of your overall impression of the literature, and where the most fruitful avenue of research leads to next. To be precise:

1. Where in the battle of ideas can this argument be located? Who agrees with their contentions, and who does not? When in doubt, explain how the article fits in the broader theoretical debates discussed in this class.

2. Any concluding thoughts on the direction that scholarly research should follow next. Are these articles a fresh start or a dead end?

The length of each synopsis is expected to be roughly 3 double-spaced pages in length, or 750 words—not including footnotes or bibliography. Presentations will be determined by sign-up at the outset of the course and, depending on class size, may be conducted with partners. Again, the synopsis for each will be due 24-hours prior to the scheduled presentation. Be sure to forward a copy of this to the instructor, who will distribute it to the class via email listserv. Although not required, Powerpoint may be used during the presentations. Keep in mind, however, that the use of any audio-visuals will depend upon classroom infrastructure and your own familiarity with such devices. When used, it is always best to test this equipment and its compatibility with your files well in advance of your presentation. The date for both readings presentations will be determined at the start of the class. Each are worth 15% of your final grade, with an equal weighting between written and verbal components. II. Paper Outline (10%) The term paper outline is designed to help the student clarify their paper’s topic, as well as the structure of the argument to be contained within. If anything, the assignment will prevent students leaving the writing of their term paper until the night before its due date. In terms of research subject, students are permitted to choose any security phenomenon that somehow relates to the various topics and themes covered in this class. Students are encouraged to pursue their own research interests, for the best research is that conducted by scholars who are



actually interested in their subject of study. Even so, students are expected to adhere to the ‘rigorous’ standards of social science outlined below. The topic chosen is thus far less critical than the quality of the methods adopted to pursue it. In no more than two pages, double-spaced (500 words)—not including footnotes or bibliography—the student will detail the following elements:

1. Objective of the paper. What issue (related to the course’s content) is the paper to study? Why is this exercise important and worthy of consuming precious research resources? How will this project benefit the field as a whole?

2. Research question. In one or two sentences, what is the research question that the paper is trying to answer?

3. Thesis: What, in no more than two sentences, will be the main argument of the paper? Be sure to mark this casual equation in bold. It is important that you are as specific here as possible, particularly regarding cause and effect. These are your ‘independent’ and ‘dependent’ variables, and your thesis MUST have both. For example, if I observe X, then I will observe Y as a consequence. Also, be sure not to personalize your thesis. People and countries are simply cases you use to illuminate your broader, more generalized model, not the focus of the study itself.

4. Theoretical framework. Where does the argument sit in relation to the rest of the literature in the field? How do your theories, arguments, and methodologies relate to those of the rest of the field? Map the intellectual terrain of your issue. Be sure to include at least a few scholars in each camp—and to cite their specific works. Most importantly, what gap in our understanding are you trying to fill? Again, be sure to cite your sources.

5. Methodology. This is the matter of how the paper is going to prove its argument. Methods are simply the definition and operationalization of the variables outlined in thesis statement. How will you define X? How will you define Y? How will you measure and track X and Y over time, and where will you find this evidence? Just as important, how will you know that your measures are both reliable (that you enjoy a degree of confidence in their accuracy and precision, and that others could repeat your measures) and valid (that you are certain that the measures chosen actually reflect the underlying phenomenon which are you are attempting to test for)? Ultimately, how well you answer these questions will determine how compelling your thesis will be made to the reader. Be sure to cite your sources.

6. Prospective bibliography. Provide the PEER-REVIEWED sources that the paper will use to gather evidence in support of the thesis. At this stage of the process you should be able to cite 5-6 sources and include them in the discussions above. Be sure to include all relevant bibliographic details.

The paper outline is due at the end of Week 4: Friday, September 30, 2011. III. Term Paper (40%) The term paper provides an opportunity for the student to demonstrate his or her ability to incorporate and apply established theory as part of a sophisticated analysis of a contemporary issue related to the focus of this course. The fundamental aim of this exercise is to go beyond mere speculation, and examine issues in a critical and enlightened manner.



The student may select any paper topic, so long as it relates to the lecture material covered in this course. Find a question pertinent to the modern study of organized conflict, and then attempt to answer it. The course outline written above provides a detailed guide as to the topics suitable for examination. Should the student have any questions or require any clarification in regards to their topic, please see the instructor during office hours, or as otherwise scheduled. In addition, all students are encouraged to consult with the instructor prior to the paper’s completion. Expectations for the term paper are straightforward. The student will ably complete each of the following:

1. Introduction. The student will describe the research question that they have set out to answer, as well as explain why the reader should care about this topic. In addition, the thesis must be stated immediately. The thesis is the student’s argument in its clearest and most concise form. Every piece of evidence that follows is to be strictly subjugated towards the purpose of supporting this argument. Furthermore, the paper’s thesis statement must be written in bold, otherwise a penalty of 3% will be levied. This will enhance clarity for both the author and the reader.

2. Literature review. Briefly outline the various schools of thought that exist in relation to the paper’s topic. Tell the reader what the body of scholarly literature already says about the research question. Is the existing literature useful? Why, or why not? What gap in the literature are you trying to fill? (Undergraduates: do not worry about a comprehensive survey, just inform the reader of the main streams of thought in a single paragraph or two. Graduate students: this is where your extra 5 pages will come from. The expectation will be for you to demonstrate a comprehensive grasp of the theories and debates that make up this field).

3. Argument: Theory and Evidence. Here the student will advance their argument (the thesis) in an attempt to answer the research question they have asked. What evidence suggests your hypothesis ably describes the causal mechanism, as measured against both logical consistency and the empirical record? What makes you confident that your sample of evidence accurately reflects the larger population from which it is drawn? Be sure to present all the relevant evidence in support of the thesis in as clear a manner as possible.

4. Conclusion. Restate the key points of the argument. Again, what makes your evidence and logic so compelling? Highlight how and why your argument can be considered superior to the alternatives. Additionally, offer suggestions on potential policy prescriptions and where the research program should go from here.

5. Bibliography. Include all works cited. Footnotes are preferred. The instructor holds no preference over the format style, so long as it is consistently maintained throughout the term paper. The length of the paper is expected to be 20 double-spaced pages (5,000 words) for undergraduates and 25 double-spaced pages for graduate students (7,500 words)—excluding footnotes and bibliography.



Since even a 20-page paper does not allow for an exhaustive history or superfluous detail, be sure that all the material included is directly relevant to supporting the main thesis. Ruthless editing is required to purge all unnecessary details. Term papers will be marked, in part, on the clarity and strength of their arguments, as well as the demonstrated ability to use empirical evidence in support of the thesis. The term paper is due on the last day of class, in Week 14, Friday, December 2, 2011.



Writing Tools It takes concerted effort to deliver a well-crafted argument. The quality of an author’s research, logical consistency, and writing all weigh heavily on the final grade achieved, and thus each must be seriously attended to during all stages of the writing process. The following are a series of tools to help improve the delivery and presentation of a student’s work. A Writer’s Checklist 1. Edit for argument: a) Is my thesis clearly stated? b) Is there an obvious 'route map' or preview of points to come? c) Are my arguments relevant, complete, and defensible? d) Are my facts complete, correct, and documented correctly? 2. Edit for organization: a) Does my introduction supply suitable background information? b) Are my paragraphs well arranged and developed with topic sentences and good support details? c) Is my conclusion effective? 3. Edit for style: a) Is wordiness kept to a minimum? b) Is diction suitable for the paper's intended audience? c) Does documentation follow established conventions? d) Does the paper adhere to course requirements? 4. Edit for correctness: a) Is my paper grammatically correct? b) Is the spelling correct? c) Are there typographical and computer errors? Concerning Prose How well do you integrate your ideas? Is there a logical flow to the narrative? Do you transit smoothly between ideas? Does your argument

connect? How accurate is your grammar? If you need help you can see the Writing Centre. Consistent use of tenses? Correct spelling and punctuation? Agreement between subject and verb? Appropriate placement of modifiers (adjectives and adverbs)? Avoid sentence fragments (incomplete sentences) Avoid slang and unprofessional language Do you properly and effectively cite your sources? Concerning Analysis Is the topic relevant? Does it fill an existing gap in our literature? Do you probe the primary and secondary literature? How deep is your analysis? Are you making a unique contribution or just regurgitating what has already been said? How persuasive is your argument? How do you know it is superior to any alternative explanations? Is your analysis clear, concise, coherent, and escapes simple political polemics? Do you substantiate your claims with evidence? What errors might be associated with your data collection methods? How sure can you be sure the data supports your interpretation, and not any rival explanation? What further sources would have been beneficial?



General Policies Concerning Assignments, Deadlines and Grades All assignments are to be submitted in TWO copies. A hard copy is to be submitted directly to the instructor during class time, while an electronic copy must ALSO be sent via the course D2L website. Note that only the hard copy will be marked, as the soft copy is merely for insurance purposes. Do not submit papers to teaching assistants. Any late material not submitted to the instructor directly must be date-stamped by the Political Science Department Administrator and placed in the instructor’s mailbox in the Political Science Office, Science Building. Neither the instructor nor the department can assume responsibility for this material. Work that is not date-stamped will be determined to be handed in on whatever day the instructor takes delivery. Extensions will NOT be provided, no matter the reason. Any late assignments will incur a 3% per day penalty, including weekends. Again, this sanction will be levied without exception. Late papers also receive no written feedback from the marker. Any student missing a deadline on account of illness is required to obtain a medical certificate indicating their incapacity. A copy of this declaration must be submitted with the assignment, as per the university’s academic regulations. Any student who misses an exam will receive no marks until they provide sufficient documentation that the illness itself precluded the writing the exam. To repeat, the illness ITSELF must be the cause of missing the exam, not any delays or inconveniences that an earlier illness may have imposed. It is only acceptable to miss this exam if a student is physically unable to attend. Should this condition be adequately demonstrated, a re-write will be arranged for a later date. Complete absolution of the exam is not an option. Although medical documentation will excuse any late penalties assessed, students must be aware that all missing assignments MUST be submitted prior to the completion of the semester. Generally, the Registrar’s cut-off for grades is one week following the final exam. All material received after this date will be assigned a ‘0%.’ Students are also encouraged to submit single-spaced assignments. Note, however, that word counts are based upon double-spaced paper lengths (approximately 250 words per page). A single-spaced assignment must contain the same minimum number of words as a double-space submission. The grade appeals process is as follows. Firstly, initial requests for elaboration and clarification of an assignment's grading will be made to the marker directly. This includes, if the course has so used, the teaching assistant. If the student remains unsatisfied with the response given, the appeal may then be put before the instructor. This step must be accompanied by a written argument on the appellant’s behalf. In the case of term paper assignments, a one-page brief outlining the relative merits of the paper must be included. Here a case for methodological soundness, logical coherence, and a sense of theoretical location must be made, particularly as they relate to the marker’s concerns and how the paper has risen above them. In terms of examinations, appeals must be accompanied by a comparison of the answer to the course content



as a whole. This is usually most effectively done with assistance from the review powerpoints. Any lingering dissatisfaction will be addressed by direct appeal to the Department Head. Remember, too, that submission to the re-grading process is also license to have the assignment marked downwards, should the reappraisal find insufficient merit to warrant the existing grade. Disclaimer This syllabus is intended as a general guide to the course. The instructor reserves the right to reschedule or revise assigned readings, assignments, lecture topics, etc., as necessary. Be aware that the lecture descriptions are particularly tentative.

3290 syllabus fall 2011 - memorial university · pol 3290 (human security: causes & conduct of...

Documents